Tuesday, January 14, 2014

For the children

I am convinced that Gavin Andresen is an evil man. It is much worse than I thought. He literally wants the Bitcoin Foundation to be an extension of the feminist sex abuse industry. In fact this is even worse than what the feminists are currently doing. He thinks it might be a good idea if the Bitcoin Foundation offered a bounty paid in bitcoin for anyone who can successfully accuse someone of a sex crime against children. This is so sick and absurd, he comes across as a caricature of the kind of dimwitted scumbag who will blindly favor any kind of persecution as long as it is claimed to be "for the children." These are his words: "For example, maybe offering mostly-anonymous bounties to reward anybody who gives information that leads to the arrest and conviction of people abusing children for profit or pleasure is a good idea. Maybe those bounties could be paid in Bitcoin."

Ok, let me follow his example. I hereby offer a bounty of 1 BTC to anyone who successfully accuses Gavin Andresen of a sex crime. If anyone can put him in prison for at least a decade and on the sex offender registry for life, then I shall send the informer one bitcoin. How do you like to live in a world where any idiot could get paid to make up accusations against you, Gavin? Or perhaps send you some child porn and call the cops? What if others chip in and make the bounty 1000 BTC, do you still only feel warm and fuzzy about "protecting the children" then, Gavin? And what makes you think creating these kinds of perverse incentives is the job of the Bitcoin Foundation?

We seriously need to support some new developers, because not even the central bankers could come up with this shit...

Anyone who wants to contribute to the bounty on successfully accusing Gavin Andresen of a sex crime can send BTC to 1Ay8PaesNqgu1QDP7VD9tNKuYKhsneHqSD, and I will hold it for that purpose.

And just to clarify, I am not trying to incite false accusations here. I am just giving him *exactly* what he asked for...

17 comments:

Eivind: Good plan. Nothing like giving a paedocrite a taste of his own medicine.

There was a minor scandal here in my home city a few months ago. It turns out that a gang of criminals were soliciting for 'underage sex' in hotel rooms and then ambushing and robbing the guys who showed up. It was amazing how many of the 'victims' of these criminals were vigilantes who were there to 'rescue' the 'child'.

The police were a little skeptical about why these vigilantes were carrying such large sums of cash; and why they didn't call the police first, but oh well.

I tried to find the link to the story to post here, but the local media seems to have swept it under the rug...

If it isn't already, Bitcoin will soon be a tool of The Fed. The Bitcoin Foundation will be an extension of the US government, working alongside the NSA and the CIA. The source code will be closed and compromised. As shown in the ongoing poll on the bitcointalk forums, this will actually be applauded by the great majority of the community. Most bitcoiners seem to love Gavin's willingness to cooperate with the banksters and the spy agencies.

I can't imagine that the majority of the network would accept closed source code. Why would we upgrade to a version of the bitcoin client that might be compromised? The Bitcoin Foundation doesn't own Bitcoin. They can only offer their software for voluntary use. If they want to work with the US government, there will be a fork and they will be irrelevant to the real blockchain. Other developers will take over, and meanwhile the software runs fine as it is. Maybe even Satoshi could make a comeback?

Eivind: Hmmm...I'm thinking of going to a hypnotherapist this weekend who specializes in 'repressed memory syndrome'. I think I might have been a sexual victim of Gavin Andresen during a Satanic ritual. That was back in the 1980s, you remember when '1 in 6' American kids were victims of Satanic Ritual Abuse.

Anyway, the therapist wants you keep us posted on how big the Bitcoin Jackpot gets: he has a lawyer friend who wants in on the deal.

That video gives the impression that lack of anonymity is a huge problem. But I don't share this concern. There are ways to be as anonymous as you like with Bitcoin if you put effort into it, and even mixing services available. The core protocol does not necessarily need to provide more anonymity, in my view. From the beginning, it has been possible to use a new address for every transaction, and if you do this I don't really see what more anonymity you need. There is no way to tell how many addresses a person controls, or to know if you sent your bitcoins to someone else or yourself when you made a transaction. You can trace payments across the blockchain all you want, but you can't tell who controls which address unless the owner wants this information to be public. This, and the inability to freeze or seize addresses, is the crucial difference from a regular bank account and what makes Bitcoin so liberating. That and the 21-million limit. Anonymity is just a bonus, and already fairly well implemented.

It would be a disaster if the Bitcoin Foundation made the source code closed, or found a way to freeze payments from addresses at their discretion, or compromised the security of our encrypted wallets (although generating private keys offline would get around this, at least for cold storage). Tainting certain bitcoins and thus undermining fungibility would also be pretty bad. But not implementing more anonymity? I don't really see the problem with that.

Also, what is the problem with rich people wanting to invest in Bitcoin? Any bitcoin you own will only become more valuable if more wealthy people put their money into bitcoin, so I would think Goldman Sachs embracing Bitcoin is a good thing. If you own any bitcoin at all, it is in your interest that the Bitcoin economy grows as much as possible. Due to peak oil and the increasing cost of energy, there are very few investments left in the world that can yield a profit. Any wealthy person thinks his money is supposed to make him money, but that doesn't work anymore because the global economy is about to contract (or collapse, but we can hope it will be slow). The panic that will ensue when people realize the economy is in a permanent recession will be very good for Bitcoin, I think. I look forward to rich people trying to salvage some of their imaginary wealth by buying bitcoins. One of these days we are going to wake up and find the stock market is down 50% while bitcoin is up 50%. That's when the real fun starts.

There were some parallels in this story to your case last year. This man was jailed and held on 1/2 million bond---simply for making supposed 'online threats'. And not even on a blog, but a personal page.

Free speech is tolerated in the US---as long at it's approved by the politically correct authorities.

I think Price missed that point in his analysis, but his observation that there is a relationship between social repression and violence is correct.

I was never accused of making threats (only incitement), so that case isn't directly comparable to mine, but I agree it is way overblown. As Price points out, it's hard to take Facebook threats seriously. It just isn't credible because that kind of rhetoric is very common but it never gets translated into action. If someone says on Facebook that they are going to kill the mayor or socialists or whatever, then that's a pretty good indicator that they are in fact less dangerous than a random person. Real terrorists don't announce their plans in advance on Facebook.

Eivind: The parallel I saw in the two cases was when the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled that a blog was like a private expression (Lex Berge might have modified that since). It would seem that Facebook is even more private than a blog, since it's usually restricted to circle of subscribers.

The proper response for the police probably would have been limited to surveillance; but it's chilling that the local police are going further than the Norwegian police did in your case. In this case it seems an evident free-speech violation to lock up somebody because of what he thinks about doing. Like Price pointed out, the treatment this guy is getting is equivalent to what it would have been if he'd actually carried out the act.

Almost everyone, including Andreas A. and other leading Bitcoin thinkers, insist it's binary: It will either fail miserably and go to zero, or it will skyrocket to 100k and beyond. There is no middleground, supposedly.

Do you recognize that thinking? Isn't it exactly what J.M. Greer harps on about? What he criticizes futurists for? I.e., either we become immortal cyborg gods that colonize the universe -- or we all go extinct in the near future.

People have a hard time conceiving of the boring alternative: That Bitcoin price stagnates. That it basically stays in the 800 USD range for the entirety of 2014 or longer. But why is this such a far-fetched scenario? I have yet to hear a single argument for WHY the price must either go to zero or to the moon.

I agree the binary thinking on Bitcoin is odd, and I never understood the justification for this. If there is a logical explanation, I haven't heard it. To me it seems plausible, though less likely, that Bitcoin might be only moderately successful, especially if it remains one of several popular cryptocurrencies. So far it doesn't look like there is any serious contender among the altcoins, but the value of Bitcoin hasn't risen either over the past two months. Maybe it will take longer than we hope. It's not too far-fetched that Bitcoin could stay in the 800-900-dollar range throughout this year. The most disappointing to me isn't the price but the fact that the number of transactions isn't rising. We are cruising at around 60,000 transactions per day now, which is exactly the same as one year ago. The blockchain is growing linearly instead of exponentially, rarely exceeding 30 or sometimes 35 megabytes per day. Real, enduring high value must ultimately come from widespread use, and this isn't happening yet. We need millions or even billions of transactions per day to be a truly global payment system, and at this might take a long time to achieve.

But I am still optimistic. As we have seen in the past, Bitcoin may suddenly rise from a plateau and settle 10 times higher. It felt like it went from $100 to $1000 in an instant and pretty much stayed there. And most of all I am optimistic because the traditional alternatives to Bitcoin are just so much crappier that people simply will use it to save money, when they realize they have a choice. Why anybody would use something like Western Union or PayPal to send money if they are familiar with Bitcoin is beyond me. I hear Western Union takes something like 10%, and PayPal takes 5%. I recently did some work for a translation agency in Abu Dhabi who insists on paying by PayPal. PayPal took $27 and I got $500. It is simply insane to keep paying these fees, and regular bank transfer fees are exorbitant too compared to the usual 0.0001 BTC per transaction (and even that fee is optional). My regular bank takes 20 kr for every bank transfer from abroad (which is how I make all my money), and I am sick and tired of paying these fees (in addition there are annual fees etc., most of which can be saved if we just switch to Bitcoin).

Eventually (unless we collapse first), people will realize how much better Bitcoin is and as the volume of transactions increases, then the value will too. This kind of organic growth is better than a bubble driven by speculation anyway. It might take a while, but I still think Bitcoin is the greatest investment.

Even Greer in his latest post says decentralization is a good idea for squeezing some more life out of industrial civilization, along with conservation and rehumanization, so Bitcoin should be a perfect remedy. The arguments for a fast collapse that apocalyptic doomers like Gail keep bringing up pretty much disappear if we all switch to Bitcoin and screw the banks.

I agree it is way overblown. As Price points out, it's hard to take Facebook threats seriously. It just isn't credible because that kind of rhetoric is very common but it never gets translated into action. instant bitcoin mixer

In general: I have your solution right here: let's breed acephalitic female bodies. It is possible you know - most of the forebrain can be excluded and we will still have functional bodies. As you have earlier in you blog bemoaned the fact that there is no crack addiction in Scandinavia, which makes the prostitutes more picky (earlier post about how heroin gives too long a buzz leading to less desperation), as well as having explicitly claimed that fucking an unconscious or semi-conscious female is having sex....(yes, it is you, wink , wink) Hark! I bear good tidings! It is already possible to clone the female body without a cerebrum, no harm done! I see a bright future for all (without the nagging). Stay strong, and believe!

No, I really don't think breeding women without brains is a solution to anything, since most men want a sentient partner. It might be a good idea to make some genetic modifications to make them more agreeable, however.